Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 00:32 > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light on diagrams. __________________________________ There is a limit to how far something this complicated can be "dumbed-down". He has probably gone as far as he can, and you still don't understand. Just accept that you have to learn some more maths if you are to understand practically any physics - I doubt that you know even enough maths to use Newton's eqns to solve a two body problem; without a lot more study of maths you can't possibly understand classical physics, let alone SR or QM. You can ask people for simple explanations all you like, but they don't get any simpler than what has already been explained. Perhaps you should learn some maths if you don't understand simple equations?
From: Ste on 20 Feb 2010 08:07 On 20 Feb, 04:10, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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. I don't necessarily accept that experiment does prove that. > 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. All this is of course true, but I don't personally see any real significance to these facts - perhaps because I'm already aware of them.
From: Paul Stowe on 20 Feb 2010 15:31 On Feb 19, 7:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Feb, 16:09, PaulStowe<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. I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experiment http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html http://www.whfreeman.com/MODPHYSICS/PDF/1-1c.PDF Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, unchanged. But, because of systemic effects, for solely field based systems it will appear, due to limitations of measuring ability, to remain unchanged. If you're smart enough to recognize it you can 'see that man behind the curtain'... Paul Stowe
From: Ste on 20 Feb 2010 17:47 On 20 Feb, 20:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 7:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 Feb, 16:09, PaulStowe<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. > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just unclear. > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > your friend. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htmlhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.htmlhttp://www.whfreeman.com/MODPHYSICS/PDF/1-1c.PDF I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > unchanged. Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, man! > But, because of systemic effects, for solely field based > systems it will appear, due to limitations of measuring ability, to > remain unchanged. If you're smart enough to recognize it you can 'see > that man behind the curtain'... ....??
From: Paul Stowe on 20 Feb 2010 19:50
On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Feb, 20:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > on diagrams. > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > unclear. No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length of the paths) of an MMX path. > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > your friend. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > unchanged. > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > man! Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = (dx/dt)(g/g). This make the computational results identical regardless of any inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. > > But, because of systemic effects, for solely field based > > systems it will appear, due to limitations of measuring ability, to > > remain unchanged. If you're smart enough to recognize it you can 'see > > that man behind the curtain'... > > ...?? If you still don't understand I can't think of any way to tell you... Paul Stowe |