Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Physics]
|
From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 16:19 On 18 Feb, 18:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 18 Feb, 14:34, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 8:25 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Let's make this a little more concrete. Let's say that S1 and S2 > > > > > flash, emitting pulses that radiate in all directions, and that the > > > > > detectors intercept a portion of the light from those pulses. (If you > > > > > want, think of S1 and S2 as firecrackers.) > > > > > No, because that needlessly complicates the matter. The important > > > > thing is establishing where a single photon would land. > > > > Yes, it complicates the matter because you haven't specified which > > > photon. Do you mean the one that is aimed at the detector when fired > > > but does not hit it because of the acceleration of the detector, or do > > > you mean the one that is not aimed at the detector when fired but DOES > > > hit it because of the acceleration of the detector? This is important, > > > you see, because if you restrict the attention to one of those, you > > > might get the (false) impression that the detector sees no light at > > > all. > > > 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.
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 16:50 On Feb 18, 3:19 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 18 Feb, 18:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 18 Feb, 14:34, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 8:25 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Let's make this a little more concrete. Let's say that S1 and S2 > > > > > > flash, emitting pulses that radiate in all directions, and that the > > > > > > detectors intercept a portion of the light from those pulses. (If you > > > > > > want, think of S1 and S2 as firecrackers.) > > > > > > No, because that needlessly complicates the matter. The important > > > > > thing is establishing where a single photon would land. > > > > > Yes, it complicates the matter because you haven't specified which > > > > photon. Do you mean the one that is aimed at the detector when fired > > > > but does not hit it because of the acceleration of the detector, or do > > > > you mean the one that is not aimed at the detector when fired but DOES > > > > hit it because of the acceleration of the detector? This is important, > > > > you see, because if you restrict the attention to one of those, you > > > > might get the (false) impression that the detector sees no light at > > > > all. > > > > 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. Then losing photons by letting them miss detectors will not tell you that. What you need to do is capture light with the detectors and use the information from the light captured to tell you the speed with which it arrived. Surely you see that. This is why I suggested you consider the less abstract and more concrete case of the sources being firecrackers, you see. :>)
From: paparios on 18 Feb 2010 16:56 On 18 feb, 18:19, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 18 Feb, 18:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos (chapter 8), gives the following example, which may serve to you: "...Imagine that I am riding a bicycle toward you. As I approach an intersection I nearly collide, so it seems to me, with a horse-drawn cart. I swerve and barely avoid being run over. Now think of the event again, and imagine that the cart and the bicycle are both traveling close to the speed of light. If you are standing down the road, the cart is traveling at right angles to your line of sight. You see me, by reflected sunlight, traveling toward you. Would not my speed be added to the speed of light, so that my image would get to you considerably before the image of the cart? Should you not see me swerve before you see the cart arrive? Can the cart and I approach the intersection simultaneously from my point of view, but not from yours? Could I experience a near collision with the cart while you perhaps see me swerve around nothing and pedal cheerfully on toward the town of Vinci? These are curious and subtle questions. They challenge the obvious. There is a reason that no one thought of them before Einstein. From such elementary questions, Einstein produced a fundamental rethinking of the world, a revolution in physics...." Miguel Rios
From: JT on 18 Feb 2010 17:51 On 18 Feb, 22:56, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 feb, 18:19, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 18 Feb, 18:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos (chapter 8), gives the following > example, which may serve to you: > > "...Imagine that I am riding a bicycle toward you. As I approach an > intersection I > nearly collide, so it seems to me, with a horse-drawn cart. I swerve > and barely avoid being > run over. Now think of the event again, and imagine that the cart and > the bicycle are both > traveling close to the speed of light. If you are standing down the > road, the cart is traveling > at right angles to your line of sight. You see me, by reflected > sunlight, traveling toward > you. Would not my speed be added to the speed of light, so that my > image would get to you > considerably before the image of the cart? Should you not see me > swerve before you see the > cart arrive? Can the cart and I approach the intersection > simultaneously from my point of > view, but not from yours? Could I experience a near collision with the > cart while you > perhaps see me swerve around nothing and pedal cheerfully on toward > the town of Vinci? > These are curious and subtle questions. They challenge the obvious. > There is a reason that > no one thought of them before Einstein. From such elementary > questions, Einstein > produced a fundamental rethinking of the world, a revolution in > physics...." > > Miguel Rios Muhahahahah yeah the physic of i did not see it coming, you are hilarious. JT
From: Inertial on 18 Feb 2010 18:28
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news: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 |