Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 19 Feb 2010 21:48 On 18 Feb, 23:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0e2132fc-921d-4b19-867f-48f47188b266(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > On 17 Feb, 21:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > Now, let us suppose we have two source and two detectors again: > > >> >> > D1 D2 D3 > > >> >> > S1 S2 S3 > > >> >> > S1 and D1 are stationary in the frame, and do not move. D2 is also > >> >> > stationary in the frame. S2, S3, and D3 are all moving in the y+ > >> >> > direction (i.e. same as the previous scenario) at a constant speed > >> >> > (which is close to 'c'). Just to be sure we understand, the same setup > >> >> > a few moments back in time would have looked like this: > > >> >> > D1 D2 > > >> >> > D3 > > >> >> > S1 > > >> >> > S2 S3 > > >> >> Your diagram contradicts your description .. you show in the diagram that > >> >> S1 > >> >> and D1 have moved apart (as have S3 and D3), but you said they do not. > >> >> D3, > >> >> S2 and S3 have also moved to the left. I think you need to draw your > >> >> diagram again. > > >> > No, I think you need to look at the diagram in a monospaced font. > > >> I did and am. I suggest YOU look at what YOU posted. Having an extra line > >> between the D1 line and the S1 line has nothing to do with fonts. > > > There is no "extra line". > > Yes .. there is. Your denials don't help fix the problem > > > D3 is moving with S2 and S3 (and D3 should > > be in line with S3). > > Here is what you posted > > === > D1 D2 D3 > > S1 S2 S3 > === > > Notice: three lines between D1 and S1 (and D3 and S3) > > then > > === > D1 D2 > > D3 > > S1 > > S2 S3 > === > > Four lines between D1 and S1. That is an EXRTA LINE that shows D1 and S2 moving apart (same for D3 and S3) > > I apologise for the incorrect claims about S2 being in the wrong place .. that must have only been a glitch in my newsreader .. looking at your original source it is ok > > Just try to take more care next time so that your diagrams are not misleading Yes I see what you mean about the extra line. Apologies.
From: Ste on 19 Feb 2010 21:58 On 19 Feb, 01:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > So let's assume that the S2 group was already moving at the time of > > emission, and that it continued to move. > > Then that is fine > > > Would the pulse *then* also > > continue in the x+ direction (i.e horizontally across the screen) > > towards the location of D4 *at the time of emission*, or would it take > > a diagonal (or even curved) path to catch D4? (Again, the frame is > > that of the stationary S1 group) > > Diagonal .. light gets it direction from the source .. just not its speed.. > > Some people think that SR claims light does not get any velocity from the > source .. That is not correct .. it is only the speed it does not get. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The problem is that I can't get this formulation to work (at least not at first glance), because you would get a lack of simutaneity between detection at D3 and D4 (because the photon would have to chase D3 for longer in order to reach it.. > Even that is not the best way to think of it, as it makes light sound like > it is somehow 'special' .. velocities of ANYTHING in SR compose via the > velocity composition rule (not by simple vector addition). And if you > compose any velocity (v<c) with something with speed c, you get a velocity > with speed c. So even though the source velocity does compose with that of > the light emitted from it, the result is still a speed of c. > > So SR would say that ANY ballistically emitted object, with speed c relative > to its source (if that was possible), would have a speed of c measured in > every inertial frame. SR also says (or at least it is a consequence of it) > that it is not possible to have any object with mass travel at c relative to > another object. Indeed. I don't have a problem with the invariance of 'c' in principle. It's reconciling it with the other principles.
From: Ste on 19 Feb 2010 22:03 On 19 Feb, 16:09, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 1:19 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 18 Feb, 18:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > {Snip...} > > > > > Well I'm assuming that the source emits one photon at a time. And of > > > > course I refer to the photon that is aimed at the detector when fired, > > > > but does *not* hit due to the acceleration of the detector. > > > > Ah, ok, then I have no objection to your conclusion, although I have > > > no idea what you hope to learn about relativity about such a scenario.. > > !> I'm basically trying to figure out how light can possibly travel at > a > !> constant speed, or at least *appear* to do so, when measured from > any > !> frame. > > Hopefully you have an ASCII reader for non-proportional fonts. The > answer to this question lies in the 'fact' that matter is > fundamentally wavelike structures and these structures are distorted > by movement in the aetherial medium. > > Now, look at the MMX with this fact in mind! perpendicular to the > movement a 'photon' that strikes the reflector travels along the > hypothenuse (c) of two triangles [a-b-c] where b is the physical > distance between the emitter and reflector, a = v(b/c) yielding the > familiar gamma factor (g) 1/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) such that the traveled > length of c is bg. > > If c is, actually constant, AND! the system is moving, the above must > be true. If so, the actual speed of light IF! we assume c' = 2b/dt > and dt = 2bg/c -> c' = c/g not c... > > Now, since it was expected by Michelson et al that the travel length > along the axis of motion would increase by bg resulting in a delay of > g in the round trip arrival times of simultaneously emitted photons, > On the other hand since c is set by the aether medium and not by the > emitting sources all fields must distort (contract) in a manner such > that, for all angles the surfaces of constant pressure (energy/ > momentum density) must remain consistent. When moving this means that > the fields take on an elliptical form distorted in the direction of > motion by exactly 1/g. Thuc bg times 1/g yields simply b and the > travel path becomes identical to that of the perpendicular as is > required for this condition to be true. This isn't something > 'special' to so-called empty space, it is the universal behavior of > all fields propagating from moving sources in mediums. > > Now, the round trip again is c' = 2b/dt and, again, dt = 2bg/c. Since > speed is defined as dx/dt and dx -> 2bg and dt -> 2bg/c then 2bg/(2bg/ > c) = c. Thus because the medium is internally consistent using field > based systems in an attempt to measure variances in light speed is > mathematically impossible. This does not mean however such variances > aren't 'real'. > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light on diagrams.
From: Inertial on 19 Feb 2010 23:00 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4cc8444b-92eb-41ce-ae08-5724ef404891(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 18 Feb, 23:28, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:0e2132fc-921d-4b19-867f-48f47188b266(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> > On 17 Feb, 21:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> > Now, let us suppose we have two source and two detectors again: >> >> >> >> > D1 D2 D3 >> >> >> >> > S1 S2 S3 >> >> >> >> > S1 and D1 are stationary in the frame, and do not move. D2 is >> >> >> > also >> >> >> > stationary in the frame. S2, S3, and D3 are all moving in the y+ >> >> >> > direction (i.e. same as the previous scenario) at a constant >> >> >> > speed >> >> >> > (which is close to 'c'). Just to be sure we understand, the same >> >> >> > setup >> >> >> > a few moments back in time would have looked like this: >> >> >> >> > D1 D2 >> >> >> >> > D3 >> >> >> >> > S1 >> >> >> >> > S2 S3 >> >> >> >> Your diagram contradicts your description .. you show in the >> >> >> diagram that >> >> >> S1 >> >> >> and D1 have moved apart (as have S3 and D3), but you said they do >> >> >> not. >> >> >> D3, >> >> >> S2 and S3 have also moved to the left. I think you need to draw >> >> >> your >> >> >> diagram again. >> >> >> > No, I think you need to look at the diagram in a monospaced font. >> >> >> I did and am. I suggest YOU look at what YOU posted. Having an extra >> >> line >> >> between the D1 line and the S1 line has nothing to do with fonts. >> >> > There is no "extra line". >> >> Yes .. there is. Your denials don't help fix the problem >> >> > D3 is moving with S2 and S3 (and D3 should >> > be in line with S3). >> >> Here is what you posted >> >> === >> D1 D2 D3 >> >> S1 S2 S3 >> === >> >> Notice: three lines between D1 and S1 (and D3 and S3) >> >> then >> >> === >> D1 D2 >> >> D3 >> >> S1 >> >> S2 S3 >> === >> >> Four lines between D1 and S1. That is an EXRTA LINE that shows D1 and S2 >> moving apart (same for D3 and S3) >> >> I apologise for the incorrect claims about S2 being in the wrong place .. >> that must have only been a glitch in my newsreader .. looking at your >> original source it is ok >> >> Just try to take more care next time so that your diagrams are not >> misleading > > Yes I see what you mean about the extra line. Apologies. That's ok. I was only trying to be helpful there.
From: Inertial on 19 Feb 2010 23:10
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7ce5aed7-3c26-486a-a1cb-fab038439fd0(a)f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 19 Feb, 01:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > So let's assume that the S2 group was already moving at the time of >> > emission, and that it continued to move. >> >> Then that is fine >> >> > Would the pulse *then* also >> > continue in the x+ direction (i.e horizontally across the screen) >> > towards the location of D4 *at the time of emission*, or would it take >> > a diagonal (or even curved) path to catch D4? (Again, the frame is >> > that of the stationary S1 group) >> >> Diagonal .. light gets it direction from the source .. just not its >> speed. >> >> Some people think that SR claims light does not get any velocity from the >> source .. That is not correct .. it is only the speed it does not get. > > Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Good :) > The problem is that I can't get this > formulation to work (at least not at first glance), because you would > get a lack of simutaneity between detection at D3 and D4 (because the > photon would have to chase D3 for longer in order to reach it.. Are we still talking about the variation where the S2 group is in constant motion throughout? If so it is very simple. S2 and D3 and D4 are all mutually at rest (co-moving). There is no photon chasing after D3 .. because D3 is at rest in an inertial frame. >> Even that is not the best way to think of it, as it makes light sound >> like >> it is somehow 'special' .. velocities of ANYTHING in SR compose via the >> velocity composition rule (not by simple vector addition). And if you >> compose any velocity (v<c) with something with speed c, you get a >> velocity >> with speed c. So even though the source velocity does compose with that >> of >> the light emitted from it, the result is still a speed of c. >> >> So SR would say that ANY ballistically emitted object, with speed c >> relative >> to its source (if that was possible), would have a speed of c measured in >> every inertial frame. SR also says (or at least it is a consequence of >> it) >> that it is not possible to have any object with mass travel at c relative >> to >> another object. > > Indeed. I don't have a problem with the invariance of 'c' in > principle. It's reconciling it with the other principles. What other principles. Everything works just fine .. as long as you are not constrained by the notion that time is the same between inertial frames and is some universally constant flow. Experiment proves it is not .. time can flow at different rates relative to different frames of reference. The notion of a given instant in time being universally the same instant just doesn't apply. The problem is compounded because, as human being, we don't observe (or rather experience) individual instants .. we observe one continual eternal evolving 'now'. It was 'now' yesterday, it is 'now' now, and it will be 'now' tomorrow. It is is 'now' when I am typing this sentence.. it is 'now' when you read it. It is always 'now' .. always the present. So the idea of a single instant in time really is something humans have some problems in dealing with (even though we think we do) .. that we are really alone in our 'now', because every thing we see and hear .. even the toes on our feet, and the people we talk to .. are as they were some time before the instant we experience them. We never ever experience other things or other people as they are at the instant we think of as 'right now' .. not until 'now' becomes a future instant in time. |