Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Sep 2005 17:37 On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:17:44 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:74iei1pdg1b0dthk37sr1h3v2pi06qhms2(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:58:38 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:s399i155dn5qe261f8ft8q5vibf7vrnak1(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:47:58 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>When we started talking about Sagnac, Henri said >>>>>using fibre was simply a case of total internal >>>>>reflection like a standard table but with an >>>>>infinite number of mirrors and he was right of >>>>>course. The only reason he is backtracking is >>>>>because the analysis in the rotating frame is >>>>>trivial as you say and unarguably shows Ritzian >>>>>theory to be untenable. >>>> >>>> only when the wrong equation is used..... >>> >>>The only equation is that frame is >>> >>> speed = distance / time >>> >>>>>> It's too hard for you. >>>>> >>>>>What Henri means is that he wants everybody to >>>>>"forget the fibre version" because he has no >>>>>argument against it. >>>> >>>> My attitude is that the fringes are not casued by path length difference >>>> at all. They are a consequence of the fact that the two beams are not >>>> parallel when they meet. >>> >>>No, your attitude is that it is because the first >>>mirror moves at right angles to the first. >>> >>>No, sorry I forgot, it's because photons have built >>>in gyros. >>> >>>Oh heck, which explanation is your firm conviction >>>today Henri, it's hard to keep up? >>> >>>George >>> >> >> George, the sagnac question is not one of my priorities at present. > >Nor mine, I'll just point out it is incompatible with >Ritz any time tyou forget. In the meantime David Smith >has given something far more interesting to think about. > >> I am quite content to accept that it has litle to do with light speed. > >Not accroding to Ritz. If you want to start developing >some new version of BaT with equations that incorporate >little gyros, that's up to you. Remember though that >iFOGs use elliptical fibre to control the effects of >polarisation/spin so your idea wouldn't apply to them. > >> Right now, I am having considerable success investigating starlight that >> leaves >> its source at c and travels to Earth at c+v. > >Since Sagnac proves it doesn't, it seems pointless to >me, but then that applies to most of the arguments on >this group. Actually I suspect that's one of the few >things we can agree on ;-) > >best regards >George > see www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group.jpg there will soon be a lot more like these. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 14 Sep 2005 18:02 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:nu5hi1tlihj2dbp3d9t4mfout4t14ojbev(a)4ax.com... > see www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group.jpg > > there will soon be a lot more like these. The link didn't work but I think I saw the picture earlier so maybe there's a typo. If it's what I saw, I presume you now have the y scales matched. What you need to show next is that the velocity curves also match for the same parameters, including the phase. From my point of view, the whole thing remains pointless as Sagnac disproves the hypothesis on which your model is based. George
From: George Dishman on 14 Sep 2005 18:18 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dg78mo$5p4$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... > > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1126564087.777831.76000(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> George Dishman wrote: >>> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >>> news:1126405408.815651.120520(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> > >>> > Jeff Root wrote: >>> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >>> ... >>> >>> I was really just going to ask about the comment >>> to me at the bottom but since this is rehashing >>> an old conversation with Jim, I'll refresh his >>> memory. >>> >>> >> >> > when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction >>> >> >> > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's >>> >> >> direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the >>> >> >> railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in >>> >> >> which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction >>> >> >> is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling >>> >> >> straight down to the floor. >>> >>> ... and the Earth is moving sideways (whether >>> he knows it or not). >> >> Perhaps- but what is its net motion? > > I left your paragraph intact because it was all correct, > just unfinished. ... Ooops, sorry Jim, Jeff just let me know he wrote that paragraph. I hope we all agree what he said anyway, it is later that the differences arise. My apologies if you feel it is incorrect, the mis-attribution was not intentional. George
From: jgreen on 15 Sep 2005 01:28 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1126564087.777831.76000(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > >> news:1126405408.815651.120520(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > Jeff Root wrote: > >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> ... > >> > >> I was really just going to ask about the comment > >> to me at the bottom but since this is rehashing > >> an old conversation with Jim, I'll refresh his > >> memory. > >> > >> >> >> > when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction > >> >> >> > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's > >> >> >> direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the > >> >> >> railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in > >> >> >> which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction > >> >> >> is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling > >> >> >> straight down to the floor. > >> > >> ... and the Earth is moving sideways (whether > >> he knows it or not). > > > > Perhaps- but what is its net motion? > > I left you paragraph intact because it was all correct, > just unfinished. As you said, "to a person on the railcar, > ... the ray's direction is not altered-- it is still going > from the ceiling straight down to the floor." > > > The earth rotates, revolves (sun), > > the milky way galaxy spins (probably on more than one axis), has > > motion ref > > other galaxies, globular clusters probably move ref each other......... > > the entire visible universe may be a unit moving ref other unseen > > 'parts' of the infinity. > > So we/you have no idea what the net motion of train or track is. > > (and never will :-( ) > > To the person on the car, the car is not moving but > the Earth, Sun, galaxies and clusters are moving. > You speak about "net motion" as if it had some other > meaning but it just means combining several, for > example combining the motion of the galaxies relative > to the Sun to that of the Sun relative to the railcar > to get the motion of the galaxies relative to the > railcar. The old chestnut! If I could plot the center of the universe, with a good enough computer, FoRs become redundant, because ALL calculations to be made from there. :-( > > >> > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can > >> > prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was > >> > SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually finds out that he was > >> > mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths centre (flat > >> > earth) > >> > >> We went over this many times Jim but you seem to > >> have forgotten it all. In the scenario where the > >> train is moving, the Earth is moving sideways > >> (inertial motion) with the centre directly below > >> at the moment the light is emitted so he also > >> expects the light to miss the centre. > > > > If he expects the light to have its path altered (miss the center), > > then he also knows that it is travelling a longer path (diagonal). > > In the first situation, the light moves vertically > from the ceiling to the floor and through the hole. > It goes on to hit the centre of the Earth which is > directly below at all times. In the second scenario, > the light moves vertically from the ceiling to the > floor and through the hole. No. From the instant photon leaves bulb, it is going to miss earth center. Hole in floor hasn't much to do with anything- all I was trying to show is that photon path is altered by train motion, and travels a longer (diagonal) path through the universe, whether the passenger is aware of that, or not. At that moment, the > centre of the Earth was directly below the hole but > moving sideways. The light goes on vertically > downwards but the Earth has moved to the side by > the time the light gets to where the centre was so > it misses. It doesn't matter whether we consider train or earth moving; just reverse paths. > > > If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then > > ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his > > speed measurer (clock) has been tweaked. This is what AE did, and > > afraid to say, you as well > > Why should the fact that the Earth was moving in the > second scenario cause the speed of the light between > the ceiling and the floor to change? Smack for Jeff! He says the clocks of passenger (pa) and platform observer (po) are operating together. So with train moving, pa stops his watch when beam hits floor, and so does po. Po has measured a longer path from emmission point. IIff c is the same along both paths, more time must show on po's clock, and therefore photon took longer time (both clocks identical, remember) according to po. I maintain that both will read the same , as the longer path was traversed at a higher speed. Although claims to the contrary abound, where are these "thousands" of measurements from various sources? Apart from high energy establishments, where a ruler is not a distance, but a time interval, and time is interprted as a distance travelled by emr, WHERE are the experiments? Binaries seem to be the only references, and sure as eggs, the distances to them, frequencies, periods, wavelengths etc are ALL derived from data which apriori(new word- hope its spelt right!) assumed c=c+v, and frequency and wavelengths altered as per SR/GR dogma. > > >> >> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > >> >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light > >> >> beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be > >> >> mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving > >> >> relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't > >> >> the scenario you're interested in. > >> > > >> > It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the line at > >> > all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL at all times. > >> > Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. > >> > >> He IS stationary and the light IS vertical as > >> measured by him, it it the Earth that is moving. > >> That is his "truth". > > > > However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the > > two scenarios. > > Yes, the difference is that the Earth is moving > sideways in one while it is stationary in the > other. The railcar is always stationary and the > light always moving vertically in both. If pa fell asleep in the station, missed the accelleration, he will be in for a rude shock (find out he was wrong about his/the photon's motion, if your brake system fails :-) > > > Archimedes (?) > > Did he say that? we call it "Galilean relativity" > but my history isn't as good as it should be :-( > > > reckoned that he had no way of telling whether a ship > > was moving if he was in the hold, and denied information from outside > > (like our passenger). > > No, [whoever] reckoned there was no way you could > tell even if you _could_ see out because saying > "the ship is moving through the sea" and "the sea > is moving past the ship" are equivalent descriptions > of the same relative motion. > > > A sudden stop would have told him there was a > > change in his velocity, but did the ship hit a reef (was already in > > motion, or did it accellerate( assuming he didn't know fore from aft)? > > Yes, we know acceleration can be detected (in SR > or deviation from freefall in GR). I am not referring to acceleration- ONLY velocity. Remember, the pa fell asleep. This is important, and goes back to our discussions on doppler (trains) Detecting acceleration is a given (?), it is the v under discussion. > > > He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic > > light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will > > allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the > > same frame. Because c'=c+v, Arch will know when his motion has changed > > from that in which the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks > > the beam- the frequency has altered! > > It won't work since all the components move together, > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces > a change. But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when signals are blocked. I deduce what is happening (happened), and that is what pa should do, in order to avoid being mistaken. > > > Now NASA "knows" this, because they have to alter their filters (read > > radio receivers) when the motion of space craft ref earth > > alters........ but the AE component subscribes the phenomenon to magic! > > Different thing, that is relative motion so obviously > there is Doppler. In fact the Doppler measured by > NASA matches the SR formula anyway so confirms SR. Doppler is NOT a cause, it is an EFFECT. There are two ways to show why c remains the same when f or u change (c= frequency x wavelength).........aether or magic > > >> > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... > >> > >> All of us I hope are correcting for illusions that > >> would be caused by the finite light travel time, we > >> really should be past that sort of diversion. > > > > Can't be done until the passenger speaks in tongues "I am wrong in my > > assumptions about my motion, and the motion of the light which I am > > "observing!" > > Oh dear. I said earlier "At that moment, the centre > of the Earth was directly below the hole but moving > sideways.". I had hoped I didn't need to say that we > would only see that happen some time later because > of the time it would take for light from the centre > to reach the car (assuming the Earth is transparent!) > > Not only that but you just contradicted what you said > about Archimedes. > > >> >> >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > >> >> >> > which is integral to velocity, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. > >> >> >> The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. > >> > > >> > Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is travelling a > >> > LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? > >> > >> "d" and "t" as measured by the passenger > >> gives v=c. > > > > Sure, but if he doesn't know what his motion is, it's wrong. > > Nope. Speed is defined as distance as measured divided > by time as measured. He measures the distance and > measures the time and divides and that gives the correct > value of speed as per the definition. If you don't like > the definition, lobby to have the dictionary changed. > That would also rewrite every book on physics of course > so I don't think you will succeed. until you do, I will > stick with the usual formula. It will happen! The falsity that distance is defined by a time interval for a photon path will be scrapped , and seen as the illusion brought about by information delivery delay, which it is. (About the same era that it is noticed that perfect clocks don't alter their rate between sun above and sun below (gravity change) > > >> > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, > >> > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather > >> > than assuming that one WILL do more ticks (no offence George) > >> > >> I don't know why you think I would take offence when > >> the work I had done was correct, merely unfinished. > >> However, which graphic are you talking about, the one > >> in which the clocks tick simultaneously illustrates > >> Galilean relativity so the speed of the light is not > >> c, while the other illustrates SR, the clocks do not > >> tick at the same coordinate rates and the speed of > >> light is c on all frames as we observe. > > > > Well, we are stuck, because as Henri points out (and I have asked for > > experimental evidence since whenever), experiments as to c'=c+v or > > otherwise have NEVER been done! > > Oh dear Jim, you're not having a good day. Haven't you > seen Henri's long threads on binary stars? De Sitter > pointed out that this was a test of light from a moving > source in 1913, the same year that Sagnac performed his > experiment. You know perfectly well that the Sagnac > experiment measures the speed of light from a source on > a rotating platform because we discussed it at length > over last Christmas. That experiment has been done > thousands of times and there are commercial devices using > it every day. Well how this?? Think on the scenario for Lorentz contraction due to velocity. Engine driver shines a beam back down the moving (forward)train. As the rear is coming on to meet the beam, he deduces that the train has shrunk, as c was the same as for a stationary train. The guard shines his beam forward; as the engine is going AWAY FROM the beam, HE deduces that the train has STRETCHED. Nothing happens to the train!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH are victims of illusion, and when doing their calculations later, should realise that their motion DID NOT CEASE when their respective flashes were sent. AE first mistake: c=c+v " second : not spotting LTs selective signage Cheers Jim G c'=c+v
From: jgreen on 15 Sep 2005 03:07
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> >> >> Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's > >> >> >> direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the > >> >> >> railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in > >> >> >> which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction > >> >> >> is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling > >> >> >> straight down to the floor. > >> >> > > >> >> > Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group > >> >> > forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the > >> >> > train rider is denied the information about the REAL situation > >> >> > (being able to know that he is moving), he is MISTAKEN/TRICKED > >> >> > as to the true situation. > > When train is in motion ref earth/track/LINE!!!) an alteration > > takes place to the light path ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. You admit > > below that the passenger knows (or SHOULD know, that this is so) > > Certainly. > > > (see my reply to George as to why we cannot know what this is > > in absolute terms) > > That is the basis of Galilean relativity. > > >> > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and > >> > I can prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the > >> > train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually > >> > finds out that he was mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam > >> > MISS the earth's centre (flat earth) > I've never used the term "time dilation", and I don't know > whether Einstein did, either. It is used to describe the > effects of relative motion on measurements, and I suspect > it can be misleading. I will assume that it represents the > relation t' = (t-((v/c^2)*x))/SQRT(1-(v^2/c^2)), in which > case I have no problem with it. ..and gravity! But you are in conflict with your teacher, because George says perfect clocks measure different intervals for the SAME event. (flash from ceiling to floor) > > > because the passenger sees a different length path for the > > light, than does a trackside observer (longer therefore more > > time elapsed for photon journey when train moving on track). > > Here we have established that the passenger was mistaken, > > due to lack of information; > > No, you haven't established any such thing. The passenger > sees a path straight down from the ceiling to the floor, > and the trackside observer sees a longer, diagonal path > from the ceiling to the floor. Both observations are 100% > correct and accurate. if that photon was a ball, would both measure it to have the same kinetic energy? > > > when appraised of the true situation (that the passenger > > slept through the accelleration), both observers agree that > > there were NO alterations to time taken from ceiling to floor, > > because in the moving scenario, both agree the light travels > > the diagonal (longer), and takes the SAME amount of time to do > > so, because it is moving faster. (see "Jim's Motion Detector") > > No, the trackside observer does not see the light move > faster. He still sees the light move at c. Good. Then he will stop his watch when the photon strikes the floor, which will be AFTER (his identical clock) that shown on the passengers. > > The trackside observer agrees that the passenger sees a > short, straight-down path, which takes a short time for > the light to travel. Why? He can only know what pa tells him; he can't see inside the van. > > The passenger agrees that the trackside observer sees a > longer, diagonal path, which takes a longer time for the > light to travel. > > > > We agree a change in direction occurs to the beam when source > > has motion altered. > > Yes. Your wording is tricky, because it is incomplete, > but I'll agree. > >> Now something more important you left out. You claim > >> that "the train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical". > >> Apparently you meant vertical relative to Earth. You > >> didn't say that, so I have to do your work for you and > >> guess. The experimenatal setup specifies that the light > >> beam goes straight "down" from the ceiling to the floor, > >> so, relative to the railcar, the beam obviously *is* > >> vertical. So you must mean relative to the Earth. > >> > >> Next, WHY was the train rider sure the beam was vertical > >> relative to the Earth? You didn't say. What observation > >> was his belief based on? You didn't say. If the rider > >> could not see outside the car, and had no knowledge of > >> whether it was moving or not, then surely he would know > >> that he could *not* know whether the beam was vertical > >> relative to the Earth. Do you agree? > >> If the rider *could* see outside the car, and measure its > >> motion relative to the earth, then he would be able to > >> correctly determine whether the beam was vertical relative > >> to the Earth. Do you agree? > > > > .as I've been saying it for years............... > > Okay. > > >> >> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > >> >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light > >> >> beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be > >> >> mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving > >> >> relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't > >> >> the scenario you're interested in. > >> > > >> > It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the > >> > line at all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL > >> > at all times. > >> > Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts > >> > the truth. > >> > >> I agree with that! > > > > Thank you. > > Now you have a passenger who "sees/knows" that the ray which > > was heading for earth center (or wherever) has had its velocity > > altered. > > If he was ignorant of measurements of the speed of light > under a variety of conditions, then he would think that. > If he knew about those observations, he would not. > Instead, he would know that the speed of light is c. This is somewhat sly; experiments which unambiguously test light speed IN A VACUUM comparing between moving and stationary sources, have NEVER been done!!! The nearest would be the highly speculative and assumptive data used to look at emr from binaries, and as the data was collected and analysed USING c=c+v in the first place, it is worthless. > > > ........and c (velocity) can NEVER alter under SR > > (which is why it is wrong for predicting both time dilation, > > and length contraction, due to velocity) > > You haven't shown any contradiction-- neither a logical > contradiction within the theory, nor a contradiction with > observations. > > You are making an extremely elementary argument about an > extremely elementary part of relativity theory. The sort > of thing that can be covered in the first day of class. Where it should have stopped, had the children not been required to memorise (read mesmorise) it. > > >> > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; the ray NEVER > >> > strikes the eye of any observer in this dendanken- (snip Jeff agreed beam direction altered by motion of source) > >> > the whole idea is based on the assumption that c=c+v BEFORE > >> > the clocks are started (they are not ticking in sync) > >> > >> As you pointed out at the start (September 6), there are NO > >> clocks in this thought experiment. So this comment appears > >> to be completely irrelevant. If it has any relevance, you > >> didn't say what it is. > >> >> > >> >> > Must we be condemned to believe a falsehood about light > >> >> > propagation forever, because the passenger has the WRONG > >> >> > information, and reaches the WRONG conclusion???????/ > >> >> > Not yours t! > >> >> > >> >> You need to think about the scenario more carefully. > >> >> > >> >> >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > >> >> >> > which is integral to velocity, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. > >> >> >> The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. > > > > Check out the triangle; ceiling/floor/diagonal (hypotenuse). > > Yes. Very elementary geometry. Very obvious. > > Einstein's theory of relativity is based on geometry. > > In his book, "Relativity: The Special and the General > Theory", Part I, Chapter 1 is titled "Physical Meaning > of Geometrical Propositions". The first paragraph of > the book (in English): > > In your schooldays most of you who read this book made > acquaintance with the noble building of Euclid's geometry, > and you remember--perhaps with more respect than love-- > the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which > you were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious > teachers. By reason of your past experience, you would > certainly regard everyone with disdain who should pronounce > even the most out-of-the-way proposition of this science > to be untrue. But perhaps this feeling of proud certainty > would leave you immediately if some one were to ask you: > "What, then, do you mean by the assertion that these > propositions are true?" Let us proceed to give this > question a little consideration. So what did AE do? Proceded to tell the greatest falsehood on which the entire future of science has foundered. (c=c+v) > > Something moving on the vertical reaches the floor quicker > > than along the diagonal, if the MAGNITUDE of their motions > > is the same. Think about it! Draw it! > > It happens that geometry is something I excel at. As an > example which I hope I haven't trotted out here previously, > in high school geometry I solved a homework problem which > no-one else in my teacher's three classes (80-90 students) > solved. I thought the problem was easy. It had a pretty > construction. A 2-D representation of a 3-D object. Well this should be dead easy. > > > Google on "slot clock"! > > This, however, I seem to fail at. The most promising hits > on "slot clock" were about high-speed communications, and > most of those were Intel research papers. A slot, in that > context, is a window of fixed-length time in which one > machine is allowed to transmit messages to another. No > dictionary had a definition of the term. George seemed to > know what you meant, though. Whatever it is wasn't among > the first thirty Google hits. Comes up on Jim Greenfield+slot clocks. I have a little gadget which drives by clockwork (constant tick) a pencil along a straight slot, back and forth at constant velocity within the slot, (although the return is unneccesary except to avoid claims of the mechanism being rotated during operation). Placed motionless upon a sheet of paper, it traces a straight line "top to botom" on y axis and return. Of course this is relative, so all y axis hereafter refers to vertical. Pencil leaving top represents a photon emitted, so a line produced on a sheet of paper represents the photon's path. Now we see what happens when the machine is dragged on the x axis at constant speed (say 3/4 speed of pencil along slot = 3/4c ). A longer (diagonal) line is produced on the paper, in the SAME time interval! This seems trivial, but it is what is happening to the platform observer (po). The line on the paper translates to what HE SAW against the background as the carriage went by. He has a longer line than the pa on his paper, but the interval which produced it was the SAME. You may hold the machine, and pull the paper, with the same result, but that is only relativity (whether train moves or earth moves. > > >> > Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is > >> > travelling a LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? > >> > >> The passenger, stationary wrt the light beam, finds that > >> the light takes the same amount of time to reach the floor > >> nomatter how the train is moving relative to the Earth, > >> since it is always travelling the same path: from the > >> ceiling to the floor. .....and in your geometry, you know that c along the longer path (diagonal), using the same clocks, MUST give a result where the two readings for when photon hit floor disagree )IIIFFF c isn't increased by train motion) > >> > >> An observer stationary wrt the Earth finds that the light > >> takes longer to reach the floor when the train is moving, > >> because the light travels a longer path, as you say. > > > > Nope! Same amount of time, as the light travels faster on > > the longer journey > > The speed of light has been measured countless times, > with the light originating from many different kinds of > sources, many of them moving at very high speed relative > to the observer. It is always measured to be c. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO It is only "measured to be c" because the standards of measure (time and length) are automatically altering/defaulting. > > >> You think that the observer on the Earth is right, and > >> the observer on the train is wrong. > > > > See reply to George; they may well both be wrong ref universal > > absolute time, but I think their clocks will ALL show the same > > time lapses for the light paths anyway, if the clocks are > > ticking at the same rate (sync) to begin with. > > The passenger on the train measures the time with his very > accurate clock, and the observer on the ground measures the > time with his equally-accurate clock. They each find that > the time to cover the path is consistent with the distance > the light travels: a short distance for the passenger, and > a longer distance for the observer on the ground. Both > find that the speed of the light is c. They are measuring the same photon! As you have the photon NOT striking after the same interval, you had better take a refresher from G. This is contradictory: make out there are two phpotons emitted simultaneousli in the same direction (down). How can they NOT strike the floor after the SAME elapsed interval? > > That is what is actually observed in real experiments. Dream on > > > You will find that perseverence with the arguement leads to > > the clock on the train altering as it increases in velocity > > with the train, and the railway sleepers (rulers) getting > > closer together (or apart, George?). The "Old Circular > > Logic".......rubber rulers and self-altering clocks > > Clocks are not self-altering. Clocks are not altered by > moving relative to an observer. What is altered is the > relationship between the observer and what he is observing. > When that relationship is altered, the measurements will > be different. Well George says we set the clocks going, go to the pub, and then come back and read the results. I fear you are confused as to what he/you understand SR to be, and provide the thought experiments to back it. > > You need to read something about relativity. Einstein > answered ALL of your objections in his little book. It > is a fairly easy read, for the most part. Page one: "If I walk away from one candle, towards another, c will be the same as measured by me to both". Slam ---> rubbish bin > > >> Imagine that the train is on a planet orbiting a distant > >> star. The train is stopped in the station, but the planet > >> is moving with enormous speed relative to Earth. Using the > >> SuperMegaHyperTelescope at the top of Mount Everest to view > >> inside the train, we see the light beam travel from ceiling > >> to floor on a long diagonal path. > > > > Rubbish! As c'=c+v, the light will travel from its SOURCE at c, > > and I will see the beam vertical in the carriage. This is the > > same old same! > > The railcar is moving at high speed relative the observer > on Earth. So the beam is travelling on a long, diagonal > path relative to the Earth. That is what you argued above. > Why is it now rubbish? What makes you think that the car stops after the ray is emitted? I may see the ray on an angle, but I KNOW that the source is still on its original vector, and any illusionary morphing of the image, is just that; an image, and does n't give the true situation. This is no more mind bending than a lensed image- If I "look" shorter in a curved mirror, I am not rushing out to buy platform shoes; I am MISTAKEN! > > > dhR's ALWAYS assume c=c+v BEFORE begining even a thought > > experiment. It is due to indoctrination! > > We are trying to find a contradiction in relativity theory, > which assumes that the speed of light is constant. If we > were trying to find contradictions in Jeff's ad-hoc sock > theory, we would assume that the number of socks in the > Universe is constant. Showing an internal contradiction > when assuming a constant number of socks would disprove my > theory. Showing an internal contradiction when assuming > a constant speed of light would disprove relativity. Use AE method: By "definition" say that 9 socks = 8 socks when "necessary". This is what SR does, when it claims that f and u change in order to maintain c. There is no scientific mechanism for the changes, and how a photon "knows" what the reciever is doing ref velocity, in order to maintain that exact velocity with it (c) is truly a mystery :-) > > Elementary logic. It has nothing to do with relativity. > > >> It takes the light ten nanoseconds to cover that distance. > >> Yet to the person on the train, it takes only seven > >> nanoseconds, since it is going straight down from ceiling > >> to floor. Pa stops his watch at hit = 7 so you think the simultaneously ejected photon as being measured by po is still in transit? > > > > Warning! Do not buy a watch from this person! They have > > been altered to give results ONLY in agreement with SR. > > When tested, they are checked against a speedometer which > > when reading 60mph, show 1 min elapsed every 1500 yards. > > You assert that the clock must be wrong, but you have not > shown that it must be wrong. Show that it must be wrong, > and show *why* it must be wrong. above > > >> Which observer is right, and which is wrong? > > > > They WONT disagree! All their clocks will read the same. > > Actual measurements show otherwise. "Proof by assumption" > > > When the photons travel the diagonal (train in motion ref > > track) > > You have forgotten the thought experiment I just set up. > I was talking about a train on another planet, stationary > on the track. But the planet and train are moving together > at enormous speed relative to Earth. So the path of the > light is indeed a long diagonal, as seen through the > telescope on Mount Everest. > > > they do so at higher velocity (speed) and so time > > taken is the same as for train in the station. > > Looking through the telescope on Mount Everest, we can > see that the speed of the light is just c, even though > the light source is moving very fast relative to us. > > >> Think about it. > >> > >> >> > Yep! That amazing bulb again, which gives each and every > >> >> > emitted photon instruction on which 'speed' to leave at, > >> >> > according to whether it is headed forward, down, or > >> >> > otherwise. haha > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the > >> >> >> > changed photon propagation. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'll let you explain what you had in mind when you wrote > >> >> >> that, rather than trying to guess. > > > > Lazy? Draw a diagram, with photons emitted in all directions > > simultaneously; now try it with source in motion. > > Apparently, all you are saying is that the diagonal path > is longer than the straight-down path. Is that right? > > Did anyone ever disagree with that obvious fact? No. The "obvious fact" being, that if photon is travelling at c on both, it will take a different interval to reach the floor. I say experiment shows otherwise, bur George has yet to appraise me of WHY doppler is produced by something not moving in the direction of the source relative to the source motion. (A plane directly above does NOT appear to have its frequency altered, once time of sound production is factored against the position) > > The Pythagorean theorem isn't needed to show it, either. > > > The animation as sent to me (have you actually SEEN it?) > > No, but George explained it well. So you are arguing strongly in support of something you haven't seen? This is somewhat satandard for DHR's , as shown by the reluctance to do other than make claims about all these "thousands" of experiments which are cliamed in support. Admit it! You have accepted that at face value. > > > appears to have the clocks running out of sync apriori, > > which is using a postulate to "prove" itself. Want to accept > > that? Not I! > > You don't understand what the animation shows. You don't > understand *why* the clocks are not synchronized. You > don't understand what the animation is intended to show. > > Even after George explained it to you again. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis (689 lines!) Attn George! I first realised the mistake in the diagrams sent you ref SR from "Time Magazine" while watching a glowing insect flying around in pitch darkness. It dawned on me, that if my eyes didn't swivel, neck turn, or gravity appraise me of the vertical, I would have no idea of the motion, if any, of that bug. Look at the po! If he was in the dark, HE would have no more idea of what was happening to the ray in the carriage, than would the pa. On a coal dark night, his conclusion would be exactly that of the pa, who were HE in the dark, ALSO wouldn't know what the photon was doing. The whole scenario is based on SELECTIVE INFORMATION GIVEN THE OBSERVERS. Similarly for a moving train: does it only shrink for those with good sight, and not for the blind, or only when the lights are on? And what if I use some other communication , other than light? If I string a wire the length of the train, and send a 'tap' down/up the wire, will I find evidence of contraction (or stretching if the guard does it)??? Jim G c'=c+v |